Thursday, December 21, 2017

Bombay (aka Mumbai), and the Convergence of Race and Religious War

By Nicholas Stix
December 4, 2008
October 23, 2015
“[Lone captured Bombay terrorist Azam Amir Kasav, alias Ajmal Kasab] described how its mastermind briefed the group to ‘target whites, preferably Americans and British.’”
As James Fulford noted, the Moslem terrorists who murdered 188 people in Bombay (Mumbai) and wounded over 300, were not instructed to kill Christians or “Infidels” as such, but to kill whites (“target whites, preferably Americans and British”). (Since they went out of their way to find and kill Jews, the terrorists obviously had special instructions in that case, as well.)

Islam’s apologists tell us that it is a religion transcending race, but few Moslems seem to have gotten the memo. Whether in Scandinavia, or France, nowadays, a pretty, blonde, Christian girl walking down a street has the sickening realization that she is about to be gang-raped, when she hears a foreign-accented voice cry out, “White slut!” or “Australian slut!”

Not “Infidel slut!”

The only thing the victims can count on is that the authorities and the media will lie about or suppress the facts, and that feminists, who have submitted to Islam without a whimper, will denounce the bringing to justice of the monsters as “nothing but racist prosecutions,” with the media and “social scientists” twisting Islamic evil into a saga of Western, white, patriarchal perfidy:
“The extreme moral outrage is not due to the act of rape itself, but rather to the collective fear of losing control over white women by our dominant white male society – a society that fails its youth by taking cheap shots to distract people`s attention from the real social and economic causes of crime.

In doing so, we tend to forget the high price we`re incurring on ourselves.” [Quoted in Betraying the rape victims, by Miranda Devine, The Sun-Herald, November 30, 2003.]
People can even go to jail, simply for telling the truth.

Australian Judge Michael Finnane, in sentencing one of a gang of Moslem Lebanese gang rapists in 2002, said the Sydney attacks were the sort of thing “you hear about or read about only in the context of wartime atrocities.”

But of course, they were wartime atrocities.

Another sentencing judge, Megan Latham, not only issued “laughably lenient sentences to three men”in the words of the Sun-Herald’s Miranda Devine, but lied about the rapes’ racial character: “There is no evidence before me of any racial element in the commission of these offences.”

America has since circa 1933 had its own terroristic racial “religion,” the Nation of Islam, which during its early 1970s’ campaign of racial mass murder, killed between 70 and 270 whites in California alone.

“Real” Moslems mock the NOI, and yet, the Koran is little more than a playbook for subjugation and slaughter.

In the West, Moslem immigrants are encouraged to attack the people off whom they are often leaching, by educational and media establishments which incessantly propagandize that they are “victims” of Western “racism,” and against the peoples of their own lands, and by governments which grant the invaders privileges and disenfranchise their own peoples. In other words, the Moslems are simply joining the (for now) low-intensity civil wars that Western elites have long been waging against their own peoples. And due to the institutionalized power of racist civil rights and multicultural dogma, the language of that civil war has been the language of race war.

With that in mind, we may yet see a growing comity between traditional Moslems and the NOI in America, especially with the man who calls himself “Barack Obama” in the White House.

The odd thing is that such language games should have spread all the way to Bombay. Perhaps I am being naïve, given the global sweep of the Western MSM’s anti-white racism.

Observers are warned not to fall for the literal meaning of such sophistry, which suggests that Moslems are the friends of “persons of color.” Moslems have always supported slavery, and still do, and Arab Moslems hold blacks—even black Moslems—in particular contempt. (Although, if one tried tallying up all the groups that Moslems hold up as objects of particular contempt, one would eventually find that the Religion of Humiliation and Hatred leaves out scarcely anyone, including Moslems!)

In considering the expressions and rationalizations of such a bellicose “faith,” it is good to keep in mind something my old philosophy teacher, Hans Joachim Krämer, liked to say: “Gründe lassen sich immer finden (Reasons can always be found).”

Enoch Powell said, “The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.”

The craziest aspect of the rise of Islam in the West is that power in the West has been seized by people who have done their best to bring about, and even accelerate, the rise of preventable evils.

Old Atlantic Lighthouse said...

And yet those who read this are still afraid to say,save the white people, stop non-white immigration and keep the West white majority and safe for whites. Those words are hostages to fortune to be used against me, and every white person reading them quakes with fear. These are the feelings of being occupied. Its lying to ourselves to call it anything else.

Thursday, December 4, 2008 at 10:08:00 PM EST

Nicholas Stix said...

Your language is very powerful, and yet I will stick to the phrase “civil war,” for the occupation was invited by the West’s elites, rather than being the product of a military invasion. And I recall the phrase of German constitutional theorist Martin Kriele, of a government exercising “partisanship in a civil war” (“Parteilichkeit im Bürgerkrieg”).

And yet, even the phrase “civil war” is imperfect, because it assumes two or more groups of citizens fighting each other, whereas in this conflict, a large chunk of the fighters are not citizens at all.

One thing I just realized I should have changed: Since not only do the attackers not wear uniforms (though they often carry flags!), and the government manipulates them against its own citizens, instead of “civil war,” I should have said “dirty war,” though this requires redefining the latter term as a combination of “civil war,” the previous definition of “dirty war,” and “terrorism.”



1. Noun 1. dirty war - an offensive conducted by secret police or the military of a regime against revolutionary and terrorist insurgents and marked by the use of kidnapping and torture and murder with civilians often being the victims; "thousands of people disappeared and were killed during Argentina's dirty war in the late 1970s"
act of terrorism, terrorism, terrorist act - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

Thursday, December 4, 2008 at 10:29:00 PM EST
Posted by Nicholas
1:39 A.M.


Anonymous said...

"occupation was invited by the West’s elites"

May I suggest a word I use on "" in the hope that it would become viral, but still hasn't:

trans·fecttransˈfekt/verbMicrobiologyverb: transfect; 3rd person present: transfects; past tense: transfected; past participle: transfected; gerund or present participle: transfecting infect (a cell) with free nucleic acid. introduce (genetic material) by transfection.


I use it this way: "Merkel is transfecting Germany with Islamics in order to destroy the Germanic peoples."

Friday, October 23, 2015 at 2:52:00 PM EDT

Anonymous said...

"Dirty war" within the context of blacks in America waging war against whitey and consisting of the rape of white women and the attacks on elderly whites.

Friday, October 23, 2015 at 2:59:00 PM EDT


Anonymous said...

All throughout the history of mankind, you will see atrocities committed by one "tribe" upon the other. To make choices that puts oneself at greater risk, is to deny the oldest of human instincts. Self Preservation. The discussion stops there.
Only an idiot [liberal / greedy bastard] would choose weakness.

Anonymous said...

When is a suspension,actually agreement?
Answer:When someone like Jemele Hill REPEATS what she said that caused her to receive a reluctant suspension months ago--now what?If ESPN doesn't suspend or fire her for a second set of remarks on Trump,they are condoning it.Here's the story:
(FOX NEWS)ESPN anchor Jemele Hill has doubled down on her belief that President Trump is a “white supremacist,” saying, “I don’t take it back,” when asked about her controversial remark on former NFL star Arian Foster’s “Now What?” podcast on Wednesday.

“I thought everybody knew; I thought, you know, I was saying water was wet,” Hill recounted as she laughed. “I didn’t think I was saying anything that was shocking.”

Hill wasn’t initially suspended when she labeled Trump a “white supremacist” on Twitter earlier this year. But ESPN sidelined her for two weeks in October when she violated the company’s social media guidelines a second time by calling on fans to boycott the Dallas Cowboys’ advertisers after owner Jerry Jones told players they would be benched if they didn't stand up during the national anthem.

“I thought everybody knew; I thought, you know, I was saying water was wet.”

- Jemele Hill
Foster called Hill “the target of a sitting president” because Trump responded to her original comments by mocking her network’s low ratings on Twitter. The ESPN host laughed and said that getting a reaction from the president would be in her obituary.

The “SportsCenter” star blamed media members who accuse ESPN of being too liberal for combing through her Twitter replies, looking for anti-Trump comments that would quickly became national news.

“Donald Trump is a white supremacist who has surrounded himself with other white supremacists,” Hill wrote on Sept 11. She called him “the most ignorant, offensive president of my lifetime.”

Hill also called Trump a “bigot,” and “unqualified and unfit to be president.” And she added, “If he were not white, he never would have been elected.”

Hill, an outspoken liberal, admitted in October that she cried in a meeting because her comments made “ESPN become a punching bag,” but she doesn’t regret what was said.

“I said what I said and I don’t take it back,” Hill told Foster, who asked, “No retraction?”

“No, I never have and I never will,” Hill fired back.

Hill’s original tweets caught the attention of the White House and Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, who said she considered the rhetoric a “fireable offense.”

Foster offered his unsolicited opinion of Sanders during his conversation with Hill. “She’s so trash, I’m going to say it for you, she’s so trashy,” Foster said.

Hill didn’t jump on Foster’s derogatory comments about Sanders. And the conversation shifted to Trump’s frequent attacks on journalists via social media.

“And they’re mostly colored people,” Foster said. “There is definitely a trend.”

But Trump has in recent months taken on media members of all races, including MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” duo of Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski; CNN’s Jim Acosta, CNN Worldwide President Jeff Zucker; a variety of NBC News executives; and Washington Post reporter Dave Weigel.

Once Hill’s episode of Foster’s podcast went live, the ESPN anchor took to Twitter once again.

“This was such a dope conversation,” she wrote.

ESPN declined comment.
GRA:Now she's immune from discipline?
Most likely.
---GR Anonymous